Tax Cuts Work Everytime

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Any Hedgehogs Running for President?
Why the silence from McCain, Romney, and Giuliani on the clear success of the Reagan-Bush tax-cut model?

By Larry Kudlow

Another impressive jobs report was released by the U.S. Department of Labor last Friday, but you didn’t hear anything about it from the big-three Republican candidates for president. They claim to support President Bush’s supply-side tax cuts, and say they will fight repeal should they be elected to the Oval Office. Yet neither Sen. McCain, nor former-Gov. Romney, nor former-Mayor Giuliani talks about the continued economic benefits of the sweeping tax cuts of 2003.

This is puzzling. It’s easy to understand why the leading Democratic candidates are silent on the matter. Sen. Clinton., Sen. Obama, and former-Sen Edwards intend to overturn President Bush’s supply-side program, and would do so with the usual liberal mantra of taxing the rich. But Republican silence is baffling in the real-world laboratory where evidence shows the tax cuts have worked. In particular, taxing capital less has unlocked new investment and unleashed record liquidity to fund business and the stock market, even in the face of money-tightening actions by the Federal Reserve.

Just look at the evidence. Wall Street economist Michael Darda points out that real wages from increased job creation have climbed at twice the speed during this business cycle than in the first 66 months of the previous cycle. Boosted by service-sector job creation, nonfarm payrolls grew by 97,000 in February, with a net upward revision of 55,000 for the December and January reports. The median length, or duration, of unemployment fell 8 percentage points in the last year, while non-management wages increased 4.1 percent, almost twice the inflation rate.

The U.S. job-creating machine is firing on all cylinders. Significant GDP-slowing inventory corrections in housing and manufacturing couldn’t stop it, nor could unusually bad February weather. Get this: According to Wall Streeter Joe LaVorgna, 505,000 people couldn’t get to work because of bad weather last month, the highest number in ten years and twice the normal seasonal weather effect of the past five Februarys. Yet jobs still rose substantially, and next month’s report will likely include another positive payback revision.

It’s also a quality jobs boom: Americans with a high-school diploma registered a 4.3 percent unemployment rate (slightly less than the national average), those with some college education had a 3.6 rate, and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher had a rock-bottom 1.9 percent rate.

The biggest dilemma in the jobs stats is the 7.1 percent unemployment rate for people with less than a high-school diploma. But taxing the rich will not solve this. Education reform, such as parental school choice and merit pay for teachers, will.

But why the silence from McCain, Romney, and Giuliani on all the good news? Despite the headwinds of war and recession six years ago, the Reagan-Bush tax-cut model has again spurred a long-lasting, job-creating economic expansion. Even Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico who is a card-carrying member of the nearly extinct tax-cutting school launched by JFK, has been silent on all this.

If these presidential contenders truly believe in the tax-cutting model, they should be saying so. The positives are simply too positive to go unspoken. U.S. employment is now a record 146 million, and 9.5 million higher since the expansion started in December 2001, according to Bear Stearns economist David Malpass. The Federal Reserve reports a record $55.6 trillion in household net worth (up 7.4 percent from a year ago) and a record $1.7 trillion in corporate profits (up 20 percent). All this should be shouted from the mountaintops.

And then there’s the just-released Forbes list of worldwide billionaires. This list registered a staggering $3.5 trillion in wealth and a record 946 members, up 150 from last year for a 35 percent gain. Almost half the list is comprised of Americans, with significant representation from emerging countries like China, Hong Kong, Mexico, Russia, and Spain.

“This is the richest year in human history,” said editor-and-chief Steve Forbes. The list “is a mere reflection of a dynamic global economy. More people are better off on this earth than ever before.”

What’s going on here is plain to see: It’s the global spread of free-market capitalism. The American model of “cowboy capitalism” — of low tax rates, deregulation, contained inflation, and free trade — is producing unheard of wealth that is turning the have-nots into haves.

Many years ago British diplomat and political philosopher Isaiah Berlin taught us that while the fox knows many small things, the hedgehog knows one big thing — and that it’s the one big thing that always wins the race. Today, the successful worldwide spread of free-market capitalism is the one big idea that puts me solidly in the hedgehog camp. But are there any hedgehogs running for president?


— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDdiOTg5NDk3OWQ2NzE5YTUzYTMxZjEyZTBjYzJmZTc=
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The liberal media will always hightlight the negative and downplay the positive

Deficit Headline Writing, a Quick MSM How-to
Posted by Jason Smith on March 12, 2007 - 16:26.
Here are the facts: The federal deficit is "down sharply"...


WASHINGTON - The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending.
...and "down sharply" means more than 25 percent over last year.

The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year.
The federal deficit was up 0.6 percent to $120 billion in February...

That improvement came even though the deficit in February hit $120 billion, up 0.6 percent from last February's deficit of $119.2 billion.
...but that's normal for this time of year as the numbers get skewed up because the government is sending out more money in the form of tax refunds to earlier tax filers.

One factor that contributes to higher deficits in February are the refund payments the Internal Revenue Service is mailing out during the month to people who have filed early tax returns. The February 2006 imbalance was the largest monthly deficit for that year.
...add this little tidbit to the story:

The $248.2 billion deficit for 2006 was the smallest deficit in four years and down significantly from the all-time high...
And you end up with an article that suggests that the federal deficit is down more than 25% from last year, and is around the smallest number in 4 years, despite seeing a slight increase that is standard for this time of year due to IRS refund disbursements. So how does MSM choose to headline the story?

"Deficit grows to $120B in February"

Focus on the negative, ignore the positive, and hope most people won't read past the headline. It's a tried and true formula... and they're obviously sticking to it.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11368
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,719
Reaction score
17,867
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I am reminded of the famous tax parable:

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and I and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back." I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. Even college instructors are a prisoner of the myth that the "rich" somehow get a free ride.. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me! "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks." "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important They were $52 short.

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727828/posts
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
Could you provide some linked sources for those statistics you gave on the last page. I want only government sources for tax collections. I would also like to see the calculations that compare the tax code to the price each pays for dinner.

To provide the first original thought in this thread, I'll go ahead and say that anybody who decides not to become rich because they'll have a higher tax burden probably wouldn't have become rich anyway.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
And the bottom 40% pay 0% of taxes? This source doesn't seem to say that.
the bottom 50% pay about 4% of all federal income taxes

since a small minority pay a huge majority of income taxes - how much more do you want them to pay?

BTW, logic dictates when tax cuts are passed those who pay the taxes get the cut
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
the bottom 50% pay about 4% of all federal income taxes

since a small minority pay a huge majority of income taxes - how much more do you want them to pay?

BTW, logic dictates when tax cuts are passed those who pay the taxes get the cut
Ok, I was just trying to figure out the rounding on that lower bracket there.

As for how much people should pay, people should be responsible for paying taxes in equal proportion to the amount they benefit from society. It is quite illogical to decide not to benefit from society in order not to pay taxes.

I agree with your latter statement, it is logical for those who pay the most taxes to receive the most benefit from cutting taxes. Likewise, if there is a tax increase it should affect mainly the rich, and not the middle class.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Ok, I was just trying to figure out the rounding on that lower bracket there.

As for how much people should pay, people should be responsible for paying taxes in equal proportion to the amount they benefit from society. It is quite illogical to decide not to benefit from society in order not to pay taxes.

I agree with your latter statement, it is logical for those who pay the most taxes to receive the most benefit from cutting taxes. Likewise, if there is a tax increase it should affect mainly the rich, and not the middle class.


Is it fair that people who use government services the least should pay the most in taxes?

Is is fair that those who use government services the most, pay the least in taxes?

There are many producres who pay over 60% of thier income in taxes. That is obscene
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
Is it fair that people who use government services the least should pay the most in taxes?

Is is fair that those who use government services the most, pay the least in taxes?

There are many producres who pay over 60% of thier income in taxes. That is obscene
Those who benefit most from our social contract and national market are effectively using government services the most, since the government regulates both. Therefore it is expected for the wealthiest to pay the most in taxes.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Those who benefit most from our social contract and national market are effectively using government services the most, since the government regulates both. Therefore it is expected for the wealthiest to pay the most in taxes.
Guess what? They do. Libs want them (and me) to pay more

How much of a persons income do you want in taxes for the 'common good'?

Since revenues have soared since the Bush tax cuts, if libs raise taxes the revenues will go down

BTW..............

revenues are up and the deficit is down all due to tax cuts



US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; Benton.Ives-Halperin@dowjones.com
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dy...NewsRubrique=2



US Tax Revenues Up 9.7% through four months, Deficit Down 57%; US Media Outlets Mostly Ignore the News

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/02/13/...ne-reports-it/
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
Guess what? They do. Libs want them (and me) to pay more

How much of a persons income do you want in taxes for the 'common good'?
Is there anything wrong about the "common good." We have a free market because the market benefits the common good. Why pay taxes at all? To benefit the common good.

As for tax level, the same level as during the Clinton presidency sounds good.

Since revenues have soared since the Bush tax cuts, if libs raise taxes the revenues will go down
False premise. If centrists raise taxes, then revenues go up. This is according to the non-partisan CBO. Only people on the far right think the tax cuts have had a positive effect.

BTW..............

revenues are up and the deficit is down all due to tax cuts
False, CBO says that revenues would be greater without the tax cuts. If you wish to argue this point, give me all the growth accounting figures and calculated positive externalities to prove it.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Government is the result of a Hobbesian reality. Government is to accomplish what the people cannot on their own. Thus, with the freedom of the 2nd amendment, on might protect one's property/life without government. On the other hand, a civilized people might well say they don't wish to shoot every robber, would rather call in the police where possible.

Local municipalities are first line taxers, the citizens do have a lot of sway at this level.

There is a creek/river that runs through the town and many other towns. During Spring thaw and rains, it tends to flood. Something needs to be done and the state does so.

State government is much less responsive to the individual than local government, but serves a necessary role regarding multiple municipalities and statewide issues.

Some Saudis and Egyptians hijack multiple US airliners and turn them into missiles, killing all aboad and civilians caught in the attack. This is beyond any state in the union, as the attack clearly was an act of war. Thus, the Federal government correctly steps in.

Right now, the problem is, the Feds are doing, dabating, taxing for issues that may well be better addressed at a more local level.

Taxes should be structured upon such.

Less government is better.
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
Less government is better, and if the government can afford it, a lower tax rate is better than a higher one. The trouble is, you can't hope to establish small government by cutting taxes to "starve the beast." Our politicians have no qualms about piling up mountains of debt.

First, the government spending must be cut before taxes are lowered. Then taxes can be lowered to a level where there is still a budget surplus. To have small taxes, you must first have small government.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Is there anything wrong about the "common good." We have a free market because the market benefits the common good. Why pay taxes at all? To benefit the common good.

As for tax level, the same level as during the Clinton presidency sounds good.



False premise. If centrists raise taxes, then revenues go up. This is according to the non-partisan CBO. Only people on the far right think the tax cuts have had a positive effect.



False, CBO says that revenues would be greater without the tax cuts. If you wish to argue this point, give me all the growth accounting figures and calculated positive externalities to prove it.

Well, libs have been taking money from the producers and giving it to the non-producers for 40 years. Government have taken $9 trillion form the producers and given it to the non-producers, and libs still whine about taking care of the "poor" for the 'common good'

So far, your solution has been a miserable failure


Everytime tax cuts have been implemented, it has increased revenues significantly. As the Republican Congress was passing them, libs whined how the tax cuts wiuld cripple the economy and take funding from "vital" government programs. As posted above, revenues continue to climb and the deficit continues to shrink (even with insane spending from both parties)

Your COB source has yet to be anywhere close to the actual deficit numbers in the last four years
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
BTWm, when the Asia markets took a dive two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton told reporters the reason for the crash was because China wanted to repeal their capital gains tax cuts

I was not surprised when not one of those reporters told her she wants to do the same here in the US
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
Well, libs have been taking money from the producers and giving it to the non-producers for 40 years. Government have taken $9 trillion form the producers and given it to the non-producers, and libs still whine about taking care of the "poor" for the 'common good'
Extra taxes go towards paying for the war on terror, not for social programs.


Everytime tax cuts have been implemented, it has increased revenues significantly. As the Republican Congress was passing them, libs whined how the tax cuts wiuld cripple the economy and take funding from "vital" government programs. As posted above, revenues continue to climb and the deficit continues to shrink (even with insane spending from both parties)

Your COB source has yet to be anywhere close to the actual deficit numbers in the last four years
Tax cuts have reduced our revenue. Tax increases can increase revenue, just like they did for Clinton. We have lost funding from vital government programs, like the war on terror. Or do you think that the war on terror is not a vital government program?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Extra taxes go towards paying for the war on terror, not for social programs.




Tax cuts have reduced our revenue. Tax increases can increase revenue, just like they did for Clinton. We have lost funding from vital government programs, like the war on terror. Or do you think that the war on terror is not a vital government program?


What world do you live in? Revenues are at record highs. When you cut taxes on the producers, they invest in new.existing busineses, they take risk, they hire people, thus you have MORE tax revenues coming into the government

The deficit has decreased for the last four years, and MAY be in a SURPLUS next year. For the month of Dec 2006, the government was in a surplus



SEE…TAX CUTS WORK!
Have you heard the news? Those tax cuts that George Bush gave to all his rich friends worked! The recent White House announcement about better-than-expected tax revenues has liberals cyring in thier granola. Why? Because America is actually better off and a better America won’t help in the upcoming elections.

President Bush announced that tax revenues were better than expected and the deficit was lower than expected. All thanks to a booming economy that was fueled, in part, by the Bush tax cuts. Doesn’t that sound like good news to you? Well see if you can find a positive comment by any liberal about this astounding news. That’s what it is, astounding. Consider the following undisputable facts.

When George Bush took office, the economy was tanking. That is a fact, the numbers show it.
We were attacked in our economic heart on 9/11. A fact.
We are fighting a war of revenge against that attack and to rid the earth of the scourge of Islamofacist terrorism. A fact.
Florida, then New Orleans and Mississippi’s Gulf Coast were ravaged by hurricanes. A fact.
The price of oil has tripled. A fact.
AND IN SPITE OF THESE CHALLENGES….

George Bush cut taxes, the economy started booming and the government is bringing in record amounts of tax revenues.
DAMN THAT BUSH AND HIS LIES….

How much longer do we have to debate the success of supply side, trickle down, economics. It works, everytime it’s tried and when the opposite is policy, raising taxes and more government control, we suffer.

Kennedy slashed taxes and the 60’s economy boomed.
Johnson raised taxes and the 70’s economy busted.
Reagan slashed taxes and the 80’s-90-’s economy boomed.
Clinton raised taxes and sent the economy into a tailspin.
Bush inherited the Clinton economy, slashed taxes and…..

Hello! Does anybody notice a pattern here. Yes, it is over simplified and many other factors played a roll in determining the fate of the economy, but time and time again lower taxes translate into more money in the private economy which means more jobs and more tax revenues for the government to conduct it’s business.

YES BUT THE TAX BREAKS FAVOR THE RICH…..

Okay, let’s get out the crayons and do the math. If Johnny has 10 apples and Mary has 2 and I take away half Johnny’s apples and half of Mary’s apples….who got the biggest cut in apples? That rich bastard Johnny, thats who? He must know Karl Rove. OF COURSE TAX BREAKS FAVOR THE RICH. THEY PAY MORE IN TAXES!

In fact, the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more than 34% of ALL TAXES. Let me repeat that. 1% of Americans pay 34% of the taxes. If we’re going to cut taxes, they’re going to keep more money because they’re paying more, but it’s what they do with their money that makes the difference. They start business, hire people, create jobs, invest in the stock market, and generally do things that help create more tax payers.

In spite of all the evidence I had to LAL (thats laugh at liberals) when Nancy Pelosi told the Wall Street Journal recently that if she became Speaker of the House, she would see to it that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were rolled back.

Good idea Nancy….

http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2006/seetax-cuts-work/
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
I am reminded of an unknown tax parable:

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and I and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
My friend responded "But that money funds services for everyone, yet the rich do not need to rely on those services - they are rich enough to use private versions."
Even the wealthy are a prisoner of the myth that the "poor" somehow get a free ride. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80."

A few of the men replied, "How will this affect the quality of our food?"
One bold fellow suggested this was the only place he could afford to eat, and hoped since the restaurant routinely gave complimentary meals to the richest member of the group, that perhaps, as someone FAR more in need of a free meal one in a while - he could also receive the same treatment.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Actually, not for free. They eat using %100 of their income, which is too low to include on the bill.Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? A few of the men wondered if each had the same definition of 'fair'.
The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. Which sounds crazy until the men realized they WERE paying for their meal, a little bit every single day through living and buying clothes, gas, etc. Realizing late - they had actually OVER paid for this meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount - until the wealthiest guy asked why he never had to pay with money he needed for necessities? "The rest of my friends need all their money for food, rent, kids, etc. I make so much that all my needs are covered, and the rest is 'extra'. He did not offer to pay more, he just felt like chatting with the common folk.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me! "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks." "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth and asked him why he had so much more money. He said he earned it through inheritance and owned his father's company. They asked if he actually worked 56 times harder than his lowest paid employees, one of which was a lunch guest.
"No, never. In fact I'm gonna lay him off soon so I can have a few more pennies." The rich man smiled, as a cop approached giving the poorer men a disproving look, he asked "Sir, are these men bothering you?"

The next night the rich man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. The bill reflected what they ate, and came to a manageable $11.

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. The people who pay the highest taxes pay the LOWEST percentage of their disposable income. Expect them to contribute anything close to what regular people do (percentage wise), and they just choose a president that agrees with their side of things.
 

Hamiltonian

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
263
Reaction score
13
Points
16
Location
PRC
What world do you live in? Revenues are at record highs. When you cut taxes on the producers, they invest in new.existing busineses, they take risk, they hire people, thus you have MORE tax revenues coming into the government

The deficit has decreased for the last four years, and MAY be in a SURPLUS next year. For the month of Dec 2006, the government was in a surplus
Perhaps you should go check those Dec 2006 numbers again. They were chopped down a bunch in the recent revision estimate because they were quite overinflated. Don't count your eggs before they hatch.

When George Bush took office, the economy was tanking. That is a fact, the numbers show it.
We were attacked in our economic heart on 9/11. A fact.
We are fighting a war of revenge against that attack and to rid the earth of the scourge of Islamofacist terrorism. A fact.
Florida, then New Orleans and Mississippi’s Gulf Coast were ravaged by hurricanes. A fact.
The price of oil has tripled. A fact.
AND IN SPITE OF THESE CHALLENGES….

George Bush cut taxes, the economy started booming and the government is bringing in record amounts of tax revenues.
DAMN THAT BUSH AND HIS LIES….
Why do you not understand the simple principles of growth and inflation? When there is a Democratic president in 08 ;) then we will be taking in record tax revenues once again, and that will simply be because of naturally occurring growth and inflation, and that will not be a huge positive consequence of his (or her) economic policies.

How much longer do we have to debate the success of supply side, trickle down, economics. It works, everytime it’s tried and when the opposite is policy, raising taxes and more government control, we suffer.

Kennedy slashed taxes and the 60’s economy boomed.
Johnson raised taxes and the 70’s economy busted.
Reagan slashed taxes and the 80’s-90-’s economy boomed.
Clinton raised taxes and sent the economy into a tailspin.
Bush inherited the Clinton economy, slashed taxes and…..
Reagan cut taxes, did he have a surplus? Clinton raised taxes, did he have a surplus?

Hello! Does anybody notice a pattern here.
Ooh, I see a pattern: presidents who raise taxes have a budget surplus.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top